Saturday, December 31, 2016

"...If I have to listen to right-wingers, I’d rather listen to someone honest, like Zeev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism. Jabotinsky never drooled on about “a land without a people for a people without a land.” Rather, he spoke about building an “iron wall” of military defense to protect Palestinian Jewish communities. As he wrote in “Jewish War Front,” “only an immensely superior force could compel Arabs or anyone else to accept the occupation of their country.”

I know Jabotinsky’s politics were dangerous, and it’s going to make my friends’ heads spin to see me quote him. But so much of Jabotinsky’s shock value comes from his candor about how Israel would affect the Arabs of Palestine. He recognized that achieving Jewish aspirations meant carrying out an occupation — something contemporary apologists for the settlements think they can hide by not using the O-word.Jabotinsky also adamantly opposed expelling Arabs from Israel. Yes, he loved a wall, but it was a metaphorical wall, not a physical one like the wall of Trump’s speeches. Jabotinsky thought Jews should have the will and means to defend Jewish communities against attack. As he said, “Better to have a gun and not need it, than to not have a gun and need it.”We ought to listen carefully to Jabotinsky’s words. It’s no joke to say we need to build an iron wall today, to stop even the first steps to fascism in the U.S...."

David teaches text and music, Jewish thought and spirituality, in their own right and in relation to ecology and the environment and has ordination from the Jewish Theological Seminary and from Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi.

That quote about having a gun and needing or not to use it comes from Mordechai Anelewicz, who before joining HaShomer HaTzair in Warsaw was in Betar.

And that quotation about "occupation" and "an immensely superior force" does not appear in the Jewish War Front. Here, check.

Friday, December 30, 2016

strongly condemned Israel for allowing settlers [are all Jews "settlers"?] to enter the courtyards of Al Aqsa Mosque-Haram Al Sharif in occupied East Jerusalem, saying it violates the sanctity of the mosque, and harms the feelings [what about Jewish feelings harmed by Muslim behavior and attitude?] of Muslims worldwide....the Jordanian Government, holds Israel, as an occupying power, responsible for any violations against Al Aqsa Mosque-Haram Al Sharif. Momani, who is also the government spokesperson, said any attempt by Israelis to storm or enter the Haram Al Sharif compound, is illegal [like living in the Land of Israel?] and an aggressive act against Islamic holy places and the feelings of Muslims.

...Principle four: Provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.Now, Jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides, and the solution will have to meet the needs not only of the parties, but of all three monotheistic faiths. That is why the holy sites that are sacred to billions of people around the world must be protected and remain accessible and the established status quo maintained.

Not only is that "status quo" discriminatory and basically a fiction, but Kerry inserted internationalization again, asserting that the solution to Jerusalem must meet the needs

of all three monotheistic faiths

This is an invidious return to November 29, 1947 and to allow the Arabs, once again, to point to a basis of diplomacy that will enable them to wrench all of Jerusalem from Israel's sovereignty and to submit Judaism's religiously historical ties in the city and to the city and its sacred places to an equal footing to other religions.It's a throwback to the 1928-1929 dispute in essence.I hope Israel's diplomats and world Jewish leadership pay careful attention to this sleight-of-words.UPDATEConsider this from 2010.And this map.On the idea of a 'holy zone, see here.And here.UPDATESome have noted to me that this is actually "old news".While factually correct, the point is that:

a. some of us who know that history do not know that people under 30 simply do not. it's new news to them.

b. Jerusalem is a great wedge instrument on our behalf. speaking of "division", any "division", more (all the "East" from the "West") or less (only the Holy Basin) works to our advantage.

c. the point is that actually SC 2334 + Kerry's speech was a double division. 1st - east/west and 2nd - Holy Basin which becomes internationalized. once we can highlight subterfuge and sneak diplomacy, that is, SC saying one thing and US policy statement taking that and furthering the lessening of Israel's connection to, not to speak of administration of, Jerusalem gives us a leverage.

Monday, December 26, 2016

But what should we term the Jews who live in the territories? A substitute for the word “settlers” has been hard to come by. I once introduced myself to a British Foreign Office Official at an appointment I had arranged at its London’s King Charles Street complex as a “Jewish civilian resident of a community located in Samaria”. Puzzled momentarily, he quickly interjected “but I thought I was to converse with a settler”. True, that was too many words, and therein is the problem. I think, though, that a more accurate noun perhaps has been found, one that is more relevant to the reality. It is revenant. According the American Heritage Dictionary, a revenant is one who returns after a lengthy absence. A revenant can be any person who shows up after a long absence such as those who come back to their ancestral home after years of political exile. This is the classic definition although Sir Walter Scott used it in his novel the Fair Maid, to denote a ghost. It stems from the French "revenir," which means simply "to return". Jews lived in the hills of Judea and Samaria for over 3500 years, as nomads, as tribal chieftains and as kings, priests and prophets. They were dispersed once and returned. They were exiled and returned....Eighty years ago, the world recognized unabashedly and with no disagreement the right of Jews to reestablish their historic homeland as a political entity. And following a brief 19 year long hiatus, Jews are once again living there. This, then, may be the word we need to employ. One word, of course, does not a victory make. Terminology is never terminal. Nevertheless, a major part of Israel’s Hasbara problem, especially in the medium of the electronic media and in academic and other political forums is its lack of ability to create a neutral space for discourse. Once the term “occupied” is tossed out in any gathering, any adequate response forces the speaker to deal with eighty years of detailed history, intricacies of international law and the interpretation of this or that Convention. If one is referred to as a settler, immediately the audience is disposed to consider the object as a near-monster, an oppressor, one who doesn’t belong and so forth. The person described as a “settler’ loses his humanity. He is a stereotype. Those who contend that Jews possess no rights in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, what should be called properly Yesha, have an easier task if they talk about a “settler”. A revenant, on the other hand, belongs. He has rights to the land, both his personal location and the collective geography. If one needs a humorous moment in the debate, the religious residents of Yesha could be referred to as reverent revenants. There are also irreverent revenants. Other residents could be irrelevant to the situation. Good linguistic advice is that to own a word, one should use it ten times. I have employed it seven times in this article. Perhaps you will join with me in multiplying its use?

Sunday, December 25, 2016

In this clip at CNN, at around 3:50, Peter Beinart (who is grossly repetitive, interrupts and acts as if it is his own interview show) "explains" his position contra "settlements", Jewish ones, that is, what are Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, Yesha, the heartland of the historic Jewish national homeland recognized by the world as the place where Jews were to be safeguarded the right to "close settlement".

He notes that Arabs residing in Judea and Samaria are under military law, lack free movement, are not citizens in the state they live and lack the right to vote for the government of their country and which Jews have all those rights. And see his imaginary 'Point F' here as well as this view:

the reality of what happens when you hold millions of people for more than 40 years as noncitizens in the places in which they were born."

He goes further and pushes the line that many of the communities are built on land individually owned by private Palestinians and that land is taken from them which is, he asserts, morally wrong and bad for Israel.By the way, at 9:10 he claims Binyamin Netanyahu has "not put a map on the table".Of course, the last map placed on the table for the Arabs was Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas ignored it and never came back to negotiate on it. And Beinart ignores the 10-month long moratorium on construction in the Yesha communities by Netanyahu that did not in the least motivate Abbas and other terrorists to negotiate.For Beinart, as I understand him, Zionism has become corrosive, untenable from a liberal outlook.

I have dealt with other issues he raises and I have left comments at his previous OpenZion site, so I'll be brief.This latching on to a 'citizen' construct is false. To take it to the extreme, millions of American expats do not necessarily vote in their residential countries but they are not oppressed. Well, they might be if they tried to turn part of England into America or take up arms to fight for some consumer privilege and sabotage grocery stores.Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria are not citizens of Israel. True.But they do vote, when Abbas wishes, for their "own government" which is the Palestinian Authority. Even outside of Area A, the Arabs could vote is Abbas would stop, for a decade, putting elections off, even indefinitely.Of course, if Israel extended its sovereignty to all are parts of the area, that would solve one civil rights concern of Beinart but he is opposed to that out of his love for Israel's future.The military law is in place not because of Israel but due to the lack of willingness of the leadership of the local Arabs to engage in serious negotiations (in fact, ever since the 1920s onwards). They have rejected a legislative council, several partition plans, an Allon Plan, a Begin autonomy plan, Madrid maneuvers, Clinton parameters, Barak and Olmert surrenders and more.As for the last point of private ownership, most of the land was state or waste land, being, in 1948, at least 75% of the total. Claims otherwise are obfuscation on the part of Arabs, many who hold so-called deeds to collectively-held village land or tracts handed out by a previous very illegal occupier: Jordan.Again as usual, starting with his book, one that has been criticized and by many, Beinart plays a liberal/progressive trope which is one that is misrepresented and hollow.Why do too many follow his piping?_________________UPDATEI caught this at CAMERA on the issue of whether the vote was a precedent or not mentioned in the on-air discussion:

First, the new resolution is not really new – it is in many ways a repeat of Resolution 465 (1980), though the 1980 resolution actually went further by demanding that Israel dismantle settlements. Specifically, in Res. 465 the Security Council:

5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;

In fact, some 60,000 Jewish American immigrants have settled in the occupied territories since 1967. Many dwell as contented suburbanites in settlements in wealthy communities like Efrat (just over 11 kilometers – or 7 miles – from Jerusalem) whose moniker is "Occupied Scarsdale", living the yuppie dream over the Green Line.Their demographic profile over the past three decades fits Friedman well: East Coast, highly-educated, upwardly-mobile, Orthodox and right-wing in their politics both at home and abroad. (This marks a dramatic shift, however; the American Jewish settler generation after the 1967 was not uniformly religious, many voted Democrat and had been involved in the left-wing social movements of their day.) Apart from their roles as settler leaders and cadres – and occasionally, a tiny minority who have committed heinous acts of settler terrorism – their priority contribution to the settler movement has been to revolutionize its public relations and global reach. Jewish American settlers have served as English-language spokespeople and “public diplomats” for the settler enterprise, spearheaded lobbying and fundraising campaigns in the United States and Israel, and single-handedly transformed scripture into a soundbite to justify and normalize the settler movement’s agenda to the international community. Most recently, American-Israeli settlers, closely linked to Israel's political right wing, led by attorney Marc Zell of the GOP in Israel have even mobilized an expat voting bloc in the West Bank after Trump supporters opened a campaign office in the settlement of Karnei Shomron this fall. David Friedman helped coordinate their efforts and remains in close communication with his friends and allies within the settlement enterprise.

The head of the Supreme Islamic Council in Jerusalem, Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, denounced on Thursday, a Jewish bride's celebration inside the al-Aqsa mosque under the protection of the occupying forces.

In an interview with the site "Daily 48" Sheikh Sabri said: "This alleged action is to exceed what is observed in the visits, and this confirms that the Jews who violate the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque."He added: "What we observe in these days is that the Jewish intruders slander the Al-Aqsa Mosque daily."

He expressed his strong condemnation of the storming by the Jewish bride and her wedding blessers into the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Stressing that the Al-Aqsa is for Muslims alone and it has , no relation to the Jews.

By the way, I know the parents, seen at left, to the bride's right.UPDATEI have now learned that the black shawl was forced upon the bride, who had her own veil, so as to lessen the fashion impression and have her present an Islamist fashion look but that nevertheless, she seems to have been the first kallah to have ascended in her wedding dress.^

Thursday, December 22, 2016

A Stone Bowl Engraved with a Rare Hebrew Inscription – “Hyrcanus” – Dating to the Hasmonean Period was Discovered In the archaeological excavations of the Israel Antiquities Authority in the Givʽati Parking Lot at the City of David, in the Jerusalem Walls National Park.“Hyrcanus” was a common name at that time, as well as the name of two of the leaders of the Hasmonean dynasty

According to researchers, "This is one of the earliest examples of the appearance of chalk vessels in Jerusalem. In the past, these vessels were widely used mainly by Jews because they ensured ritual purity”.

Who was "Hyrcanus" whose name is engraved in Hebrew on a stone bowl from Jerusalem 2,100 years ago? In 2015 a fragment of a bowl fashioned from chalk (a type of limestone) was unearthed in the Israel Antiquities Authority archaeological excavation in the Givʽati parking lot at the City of David, in the Jerusalem Walls National Park. The vessel was published today and immediately aroused the curiosity of researchers.According to Dr. Doron Ben-Ami of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Professor Esther Eshel of Bar-Ilan University, "This is one of the earliest examples of chalk vessels to appear in Jerusalem. These stone vessels were extensively used by Jews because they were considered vessels that cannot become ritually unclean".The bowl was discovered during an archaeological excavation beneath the foundations of a miqwe dating to the Hasmonean period, which was part of a complex of water installations that were used for ritual bathing.

The Givʽati ​​parking site in the City of David is among the largest excavation areas opened so far in Jerusalem. The excavations at the site, sponsored by the ʽIr David Foundation, have so far uncovered a wealth of artifacts from different periods...Was Hyrcanus, whose name is engraved on the bowl, a high-ranking person, or perhaps simply an ordinary citizen during the Hasmonean period? According to the researchers, it is difficult to ascertain. Since there are few vessels in the archaeological record of this period which are engraved with names, it is not known whether this type of engraving was a routine act or a special tribute. "The name Hyrcanus was fairly common in the Hasmonean period," say Dr. Ben-Ami and Prof. Eshel. “We know of two personages from this period who had this name: John Hyrcanus, who was the grandson of Matityahu the Hasmonean and ruled Judea from 135–104 BCE, and John Hyrcanus II, who was the son of Alexander Jannaeus and Salome Alexandra; however, it is not possible to determine if the bowl belonged specifically to either of them”.Have a happy and historically-significant Jewish narrative-filled Hanukkah (or however you spell it).^

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

QUESTION: There’s a great deal of fear and trepidation on the potential ambassador nominee to Israel by the president-elect, because of his position on Jerusalem, his position on settlements, and so on. You have any comment on that?MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to comment about individuals that the president-elect is or may be designating for various positions in his administration. Those are his decisions. We respect that. And there’s a process of confirmation that each of these individuals or most of them will have to go through and we respect that process as well, I mean, so the positions that these individuals take are really for the president and his team – president-elect, I’m sorry, and his team to speak to.Nothing has changed about our views here in terms of the tensions in the region and our policies with respect to Israel, so, I mean, all that we’ve said about the viability and the belief in a two-state solution remain, about the – about our concerns over Jerusalem, all that remains. Our deep concern over settlement and settlement activity also remain, but I can’t speak for what policy decisions with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian tensions are going to be taken by the next administration.QUESTION: Would you counsel against any departure from long-held practices regarding --MR KIRBY: I think we’re going to leave – I think we’re going to leave our counsel and advice to the transition team private and between us and the transition team.

“Our policy is entirely consistent with that longstanding view about settlements, and to the degree also, not just the illegality of them, but that they are not helping us get to a two-state solution, and everybody says that they want to get to a two-state solution,” Kirby said.

By the way, Mitchell claims that the 'policy' goes back to "Camp David".Which one Andrea? 2000? 1978?And that policy fluctuated.^

There is no foundation in international law for the idea of a second Arab Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And it would be political and military folly for the West to force Israel to acquiesce in such a scheme. Establishing a new Arab state there would injure Western interests, and advance those of the Soviet Union, by strengthening the Soviet position in the region, and by increasing Arab dependence on Soviet protection. It would weaken Israel, which, since the fall of Iran, is the most important Western ally in the area.Above all, such a policy would abandon the moral and political obligations towards Israel which the victorious Allies assumed in 1919, and reiterated through the United Nations Charter in 1945. Israel's legitimacy as a state rests on much more than the usual criteria of international law--de facto statehood; membership in the United Nations; recognition; the success of its armed forces; the weight of history; and so on. In 1922, the organized international community of the day, the League of Nations, with the special concurrence of the United States, which was not a member, established the Palestine Mandate. Through that Mandate, it invited Jews to come to live in Palestine as their national home, In reliance on that promise, the Jewish community in Palestine developed, and, with the approval of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations (the successor to the League), became the state of Israel. The solemn obligations of the international community to Israel implicit in these events survive not only as a special moral and historic element in Israel's status within the family of nations, but as a trust still applicable, with other norms and interests, to the task of fashioning a just and durable future for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. For the West to betray those commitments would be to take another long step towards dissolving the world community organized as the United Nations into a condition of universal war.

Something is bothering someone who is Koret distinguished fellow and chairman of the core curriculum at Jerusalem’s Shalem College * - Rabbi Dr. Daniel Gordis.In a column, A Dose of Nuance — Wanted: A vision for a Jewish and Israeli society, published on December 15, he starts off by comparing "the tyranny of dress code and punishment for women living under Islamic State" and his example there was a women who "lifted her veil just enough to get a spoon into her mouth when she was having a picnic with her family" and who then was "sentenced...to 21 lashes with a cable that had metal spikes attached to it" with "the proposed law that would govern women’s dress at the Western Wall" noting that "if the law passes, a woman who wears a tallit could be sent to jail".Yes, jail is a bit steep, I agree.But one: the law hasn't passed. And secondly, I don't think it calls for lashes.Gordis plods on in outrage:

But what if she simply wears a kippa? What if her sleeves are deemed too short and the haredi community finds that offensive? Will she go to jail? How different will the Western Wall be from areas under Islamic State control?

To make a comparison, even partially like that, is really odd. After all, if a Jewish woman appears in a less-covered body, say, short sleeves, on the Temple Mount, she, too, will be removed and maybe even arrested or at least detained. She won't be lashed, though. However, the Waqf guards and other Muslims might stone her. Since that is under Israel's control, I think Gordis could have made that comparison, or at least, in passing, noted the situation.He continues and charges an MK with "racism", echoing Joint List head Ayman Odehwho accused the MK with "blatant racism and cheap populism"

Likud Party MK and coalition chairman David Bitan made reference to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s infamous comment last election day that Jews had better hurry to vote because Arabs were going “in droves” to the polls. Bitan, apparently, feels that Netanyahu did not go far enough. “I’d rather the Arabs won’t go to the polls in droves, and won’t come to the polls at all,” he said.

In other words, Bitan, considering the Joint List an Arab party, which it is, spoke of political opponents and was not uttering racialist claptrap.Gordis also measures Bitan's knowledge or intelligence or both, writing:

his obvious lack of understanding of how democratic systems function, is bad enough.

But Gordis' real target is Prime Minister Netanyahu who he has been sniping at for a while now as, just for example, in

although he has taken hits for his Zionism as well.Here is what he wrote this past week in the above referenced article:

What makes matters worse, however, is that citizens have no way of knowing, at least as of this writing, what their prime minister thinks about Bitan’s views. Netanyahu, the consummate political survivor, has chosen to let Bitan do his dirty work, and has remained silent during this most recent brouhaha.

and

So, too, with the Kotel...the prime minister has chosen to remain silent in the face of the proposed Kotel legislation as well.

He grinds on and notes that "In about two years, Netanyahu will become Israel’s longest serving prime minister. [This: "According to a study by the Israel Democracy Institute, Netanyahu would pass up Ben-Gurion to become Israel’s longest-serving leader September 23, 2018"]" and asks:

how many of us know what he believes Israeli society should look like? Does he have a vision for how the Jewish state should be Jewish? Does he have a vision, beyond platitudes, for the place that Israeli Arabs should have in a democratic Israel? The fact that few of us can answer those questions is Netanyahu’s greatest failure...our leadership appears stymied; here, too, we are at the whim of political currents no one seems to have the gumption, or principle, to want to confront.

He compares Netanyahu to Ben-Gurion who had "penned thousands of pages, filled with his vision for the society he was seeking to shape" and Menachem Begin, who "left an enormous corpus of writing about the society he thought Israel ought to become."That's a tall order and a high bar Gordis is setting.In any case, Netanyahu has a few books which one can purchase:A Durable Peace, 512 pagesA Place Among the Nations, 467 pagesFighting Terror, 180 pagesand was an editor of the volume his brother's letters.How many books did Yitzhak Rabin author?Gordis does admit that Netanyahu has a problem not of his making:

this prime minister is not going to bring about a resolution to Israel’s conflict; our enemies are nowhere near ready for that.

and he thus has his article emphasizing internal issues:

Do Arabs in Israel count? Do non-Orthodox Jews have any rights? Do we aspire to be leaders of the freedoms of the Western world? Will we be content to become a Levantine backwater? It would be nice to know what our prime minister thinks about all this, to what he aspires.

These questions are important but, I would hazard a guess, those are two different sets of issues. One very internal and one that Gordis links to relations with Diaspora communities which practice a very non-Orthodox life style with different Judaic-content practices.As Gordis informs his readers, Netanyahu apologized that his words were not clear and led to a misunderstanding of his actual intentions.

Before my election, I said Arab voters were going to the polls in droves. I was referring to a specific political party but many people were understandably offended. I apologized for how my comment was misunderstood. But today I want to go further. Today I am asking Arab citizens of Israel to take part in our society—in droves. Work in droves, study in droves, thrive in droves,"

Arabs do count and Netanyahu is doing things for them including making sure the law is applied to them equally as to Jews.I am still trying to figure out why Netanyahu has become such a problem for Gordis, other than not being Begin.___________*In a promotional message, Shalem presents itself as "not just a college" but "a vision for the Jewish state", an institution that "create[s] leading citizens for Israel...who seek...the betterment of their country...a small group of students poised to make an outsize impact on their country – for Israelis, and for the Jewish people everywhere."^

Saturday, December 17, 2016

New offer for non-Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria - is there Hebrew in that symbol?

sponsored by US Jerusalem Consulate:

Wold (sic)* you like to study and work in the U.S.? Doing what? Tell us in a comment! Calling all high school and university students! This is your chance to apply for the 2017 Summer Work & Travel (SWT). This fully funded program will give you the opportunity to get a summer job in the U.S. and engage in cultural exchange opportunities. Don’t miss out!

Job opportunities:
Students who take part in this program are given a summer job and undertake non-skilled work in a seasonal
environment. Typical seasonal job types include front desk clerk, sales associate, server, host, ride attendant, and
resort worker. Students may work at a U.S. National Park, a mountain or beach resort area, or a popular
amusement/theme park in a variety of U.S. states.

For this program, TechWomen 2017, a professional exchange program designed to enable women in the STEM fields to reach their full potential through five-week mentorships at leading U.S. companies and organizations in the United States. the qualification is

Candidates must be Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, the West Bank, or Gaza Strip.

Maybe, with the new ambassador arriving soon, the Consulate as is should be shut down and relocated to Ramallah if all it is interested in in "Palestine" and "Palestinian residents"?
_________

Thursday, December 15, 2016

For those following Peter Beinart's articles, one gets the impression that he has been steadily increasing his accusations and incrimination that Israel is more willing to actually harm the American Jewish community (and Mike Davis has been doing that in Great Britain) to protect its policies, especially the presence of Jews who wish to reside in portions of the historic Jewish homeland that were assigned for the future Jewish state but due to pre-1948 Arab terror were intended to be partitioned away.As I have been in favor of shorter posts, let me now get to my point: what were those American Jewish leaders* thinking and intending when they declined to participate in a Washington Chanukah party at the Trump Hotel sponsored by the Conference of Presidents of Jewish Organizations and Azerbaizhan, just recently visited by PM Netanyahu? Were they not sending to exact opposite message: 'we will harm Israel's interests, at the least, to protect our image as liberals'?

So, who is anti-Israel now?_______________UPDATEThere was a demo with protestors.But there was this, too:

Noah Pollak, director of the Emergency Committee for Israel who participated in the event, said it was well attended. Still holding a jelly doughnut from the reception, Pollak took issue with Jewish organizations that decided to boycott the event because it was took place at the Trump hotel. Speaking of Jonathan Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Pollak said he was “willing to meet with [Turkish leader] Erdogan, but won’t show up to a Jewish event at Trump hotel.”

Joint Statement From the U.S.-Palestinian Political DialogueMedia NoteOffice of the SpokespersonWashington, DCDecember 12, 2016Delegations headed by Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee Secretary General Saeb Erakat and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart E. Jones met today in Washington for the U.S.-Palestinian Political Dialogue. The Dialogue offered an opportunity for the Delegations to discuss a range of issues of concern at a senior level, including regional matters.Both delegations strongly condemned terrorism and its supporters in the region and worldwide. The delegations agreed on the threat presented by ISIL, sharing the deep concern that ISIL has dramatically undermined regional stability, particularly in Iraq and Syria, and continues to commit gross, systemic abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.Both delegations also discussed the significance of the PLO’s long-standing commitment to non-violence and reiterated their commitment to a negotiated two-state outcome, which is the only way to achieve an enduring peace that meets Israeli and Palestinian security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, end the occupation that began in 1967, and resolve all permanent status issues. They also agreed on the crucial role of civil society, and the need to create economic and political opportunity for the next generation of Palestinians...

There is a stain in those words of summation.The Palestinian Authority supports terrorism through its payments to terrorists and its incitement campaign and its glorification actions. The Palestinian Authority abuses human rights, of its own residents as well as Israelis and violates international law.The Palestinian Authority violates its own civil society through embezzlement, oppression, lack of freedoms and not governmental transparency.Woe this America.Woe these American officials.^

About Me

American born, my wife and I moved to Israel in 1970. We have lived at Shiloh together with our family since 1981. I was in the Betar youth movement in the US and UK. I have worked as a political aide to Members of Knesset and a Minister during 1981-1994, lectured at the Academy for National Studies 1977-1994, was director of Israel's Media Watch 1995-2000 and currently, I work at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem. I was a guest media columnist on media affairs for The Jerusalem Post, op-ed contributor to various journals and for six years had a weekly media show on Arutz 7 radio. I serve as an unofficial spokesperson for the Jewish Communities in Judea & Samaria.